2855. Sex for Pleasure and Marriage are Mutually Exclusive

Women are giving up on men, because they don’t understand the male nature about sex. Her Highness Elena, gave me an opportunity to summarize why females are so frustrated.

Females learn this the hard way if at all. Sex for pleasure, aka the man’s game, is mutually exclusive with successful married life, aka the woman’s game. Why? Because wives can’t keep husbands home, cheaters are not trustworthy in other matters, and marriages fall apart from lack of mutual likeability.

Elena expressed her frustration this way, “…everything with men is about sex! Everyday I can feel in my heart and head less and less attraction to men knowing all I know now (and I am 22 years old).” You’re right about men, darling, but you’re moving in the wrong direction, and I hope to show you why.

You need to learn more about both sexes and their differences. You are designed and particularly endowed with the skill and talent to find and keep for life your choice of a man. You can find the what, why, and how details described in many different ways throughout this blog. But the angelic essential that makes and holds a couple together comes from the following.

No man is interested, much less motivated, to produce what you expect out of life. Until, that is, you coach, train, teach, motivate, and otherwise convince him you are the best woman for him.

To hold his interest long enough to discover who and what you are and can be in his life, only one thing works. Keep your legs crossed for so long that he discovers not only your virtues, but his respect grows out of your insistence on protecting your sexual assets, and his imagining that all men find you the same.

The longer you refuse to yield, the more of his respect you earn, and a man’s love is founded on respect for a woman. The greater his respect, the more likely he stays with you. The magnetic attractions of female love should be matched by the respect of a man for one woman, or they likely fail as a couple.

Nothing else holds a man’s attention long enough than a female’s refusal to be conquered. Sometimes, however, a man quits chasing early, which in itself is a sign that he was after sex more than her, which means he already had her aimed for dumping soon after their first sex together.

We are put on earth to live as couples. Only women can produce success living together, and your most critical efforts take place before marriage. Marriage isn’t the man’s game, until you teach one man that your way is the best way for both.

After marriage, women are expected to balance the books. You have to acknowledge that he earned frequent and convenient access and is entitled to marital sex at his bidding. He earned it by letting you have your way before marriage.

A personal story. Grace and I were broke for the first 25 of our 59 years. I finally gained control of our spending, and we were never broke after that.

It’s much the same with women. Control your sexual assets such that men are unable to conquer you for first sex together, and you will not be without men chasing you. Admittedly today, men may not chase very long, but it misleads women. If you’re attractive enough in all situations and refuse to yield, you will be chased. Men can’t stand to pass up an opportunity to conquer what appeals to their eyes; it’s up to you to dissuade them from immediate access to your sexual assets.

Except for convenience, men don’t chase women with whom they’ve had sex, only the gals who refuse it the first time. And men more earnestly chase the ones who made other men fail at conquest. Every man competes to beat out buds and other men, and conquest is the most eagerly sought way of earning bragging rights. It’s the male nature at work.

2737. Back to Basics for Back to Basics — Part C

Your Highness Back to Basics,

I continue my response to your comment at 2728. I explain the male nature that causes so much roughness for women dealing with men. I believe the knowledge imparted below can relieve a lot of angst that leads to female unhappiness. It’s more complex than your view of how women think. It may or may not be of personal interest.

Your intriguing statements include this bolded sentence. The context is complaint. “And believing your man thought other females marvelous attractions… while he enjoyed you mostly for your personality….” That is, men are no darn good because they enjoy looking at other women and not appreciating the attractiveness they have at home. I address it in two sections: “marvelous attractions” here.

Men enjoy the marvels of female attractions because they have two sex drives. Their primary drive is the lifelong urge to have first-time sex with attractive women that permit it, aka conquest, and often referred to as spreading their seed.

From time immemorial women have complained about that natural urge. Modern women blame and complain about it, but either God or Nature did it. OTOH, and modern women seem to ignore this, God or Nature empowered women to conquer that male drive. Many women over the centuries mastered the art, and old school American women standardized the practice.

Highly different from males at birth, females are blessed with the relationship expertise required to civilize and tame men such that they devote themselves to one woman. It’s a skill set that requires knowledge of both the female and male natures and more than a little practice. Men lack that expertise, and so relationship building and management—more indirect than direct, more patient than impulsive, more sacrifice than selfish—devolves to women or it doesn’t go well or last very long.

Women should practice endlessly on all men with the male nature in mind. He has: need for a place to flop, throw his things, get some R&R, and prepare to face tomorrow’s competitors; drive to shape results by competing against men and Mother Nature and keeping himself satisfied with his accomplishments; want of freedom to do as he chooses and especially make himself stand out among others as successful competitor, as a person of significance; fear of insignificance; ability to give of himself to those who help keep himself satisfied with who he is and what he does; two sex drives as described above and below this point; and belief that he’s handy. Women differ on all counts (Part B, post 2736)

A man’s secondary sex drive is to satisfy himself with frequent and convenient sex. Two separate drives and both keep a man’s focus on beauty and sex; attractiveness and sex are inseparable to the male mind.

However, after a couple’s first sex together, her beauty plays a different role in their relationship. Sex does not bond a man and with attractiveness attached, she appears to lose value from less notice. It’s not her; it’s his nature.

Unconquered attractive women have a larger magnetic effect in male eyeballs, which makes a man’s loyalty reasonably easy to shift from one to another. A woman’s likeability and virtues—feminine qualities a man admires—are needed to keep a conqueror or husband from disappearing after a one-night stand, some dating, or even years of marriage.

If he’s unsatisfied with himself being with her, she’s temporary and perhaps dumped without notice. It burdens women to use their relationship expertise to help their man find satisfaction with himself by associating exclusively with her.

Women are born with ability to make themselves more magnetic to a man, to compensate and overcome male uniqueness with inborn and uniquely feminine expertise for generating successful relationships. The female nature is very capable of discouraging a man from exploiting his conquering hopes and dreams. It requires that females make their own sex drive useful and influential first, enjoyable and pleasurable later. (Women interested in exploiting their relationship expertise may find guidance in the Virtual Virginity series listed in the CONTENTS page.)

There is another side of male nature that leads women to wrongful conclusions. Unlike women, men are hunter-conquerors. Critical to well-being, their peripheral vision catches motion to assess it as prey or threat. It’s an unconscious reaction normal to the male nature. Although sexual ability declines with age, the primal urge to conquer doesn’t. A man glances at what’s passing most of his life. (Just a glance is not a red flag. If he stares at a retreating female body in her presence, it’s a minor problem and her accusations shift it to major.)

Yes, men are attracted to other women and always will be. With her free will, each woman has the ability to accept it as natural and compensate in other ways. Specifically, find self-gratitude in keeping herself attractive anyway, make her man grateful to have her, and help keep him pleased with himself. It’s the smothering blanket for a good relationship.

Sex and her attractiveness play minor roles in making this arrangement permanent. After they marry, he’s responsible for the marriage and present-day happenings. She governs their relationship and future expectations. But that’s another story for another time and place.

2620. Response to Edith Mcklveen at Post 2618

EDITOR’S NOTE: Her original comment is lower case, GUY’S RESPONSE IN CAPS.

YOUR HIGHNESS EDITH MCKLVEEN,

NOTHING WRONG. I ADMIRE YOUR THINKING ABOUT SHACK UP. YOU PROVIDE A NEW OPPORTUNITY TO DISTINGUISH THE NATURE OF HOW MEN ARE BORN FROM THE LESSONS THEY LEARN IN LIFE. FOR THE FORMER, THEY ARE FAULTLESS. FOR THE LATTER, THEY CAN BE BLAMED, BUT WOMEN FAIL THEMSELVES WHEN THEY DO SO.

PARENTHETICALLY, THE FEMALE ADOPTION OF MASCULINE-STYLE SEXUAL FREEDOM HAS DISTORTED FEMALE THINKING ABOUT MEN. AS THE LEFTIST POLITICAL CLASS PLANNED HALF A CENTURY AGO, MEN AND WOMEN ARE NOW ENEMIES. PERHAPS I CAN SOFTEN SOME OF THE WRONG-HEADED NOTIONS THAT ARISE OUT OF THAT.

WWNH does women a great service by making crystal clear certain basic truths of male-female relationships.  THANKS

This service is absolutely necessary since modern women, in American culture and other cultures, are not being taught these basic truths as they once were. TRUE

This article [2618] makes clear yet again why sex outside marriage is so bad and detrimental to women.

ABSOLUTELY BAD AND DETRIMENTAL AND IT PROMOTES MALES DISRESPECTING AND DOMINEERING FEMALES. BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN TURNED INTO ENEMIES, THE PHYSICALITY OF MEN  DOMINATES THE MENTAL ACUITY OF WOMEN AND SOCIETY LOSES IT’S COMPASS AND THE CULTURE WANDERS WITHOUT DIRECTION UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF FEMININE ORDER.

But this particular [SHACK UP] post adds an aspect of male behavior that, for me, actually undercuts the WWNH assertion that men are very practical and rational and wham, bam, thank you ma’am about sex.

AS ARE WOMEN, MEN ARE ALWAYS PRACTICAL AND RATIONAL TO THEMSELVES. IF THERE’S NOTHING WORTHWHILE TO LEAVE BEHIND, THEN POKE, COME, AND GO ARE VERY PRACTICAL AND RATIONAL TO BOTH GENDERS. BUT WOMEN AFTER SEX USUALLY HAVE SOMETHING WORTHWHILE NOT TO LEAVE BEHIND.

IF WOMEN FIND IT IMPRACTICAL AND IRRATIONAL TO DEAL WITH POKE, COME, AND GO, THEY HAVE THE COMPETITIVE ABILITY TO MAKE MEN PAY AN ADVANCE PRICE OF SELF-INVESTMENT, SUCH AS MARRIAGE. EVEN IF MEN CAN’T, WON’T, OR DON’T, BOTH GENDERS ARE BORN TO COMPETE TO GET THEIR WAY WITH OTHERS. WHOEVER DOMINATES THAT PROCESS, WINS IN THE END.

YOUR ASSERTION THAT WWNH UNDERCUTS ITSELF RESTS ON THE PRESUMPTION THAT THE MALE NATURE CANNOT BE DISTINGUISHED FROM LESSONS LEARNED IN LIFE. MEN SHOULD BE HELD AT FAULT ONLY FOR LESSONS LEARNED. IT’S THE MALE NATURE THAT GOD CREATED AND THAT WOMEN MUST PRIMARILY WORK WITH AND EXPLOIT THEIR OWN NATURE DOING SO. THAT IS, IF WOMEN HOPE TO SUCCEED IN FULFILLING THEIR HOPES AND DREAMS.

My view of a man who would be “desperate” to start co-habiting or to continue by shameless manipulation is that he is not merely or only doing the natural male thing.

YOU’RE RIGHT, THOSE ARE LESSONS LEARNED. MEN BY NATURE ARE NOT DESPERATE ABOUT WOMEN. THEY LEARN THAT SHAMELESS MANIPULATION CAN REWARD WITH A SMALL INVESTMENT OF SELF.

He is actually doing something that is warped, that is immature, that actually denies the male-female realities WWNH reminds women of.

EXAMPLES SET BY POOR PARENTING AND IMMATURE TEEN PEERS WARP THE MALE MIND. VALUES AND STANDARDS ADOPTED IN ADOLESCENCE GENERATE IMMATURITY. MASCULINE-STYLE SEXUAL FREEDOM MAKES ADULTOLESCENTS OF MEN.

Co-habitation reinforces for men an immature, actually pre-adolescent view of life. It’s the view that ignores the reality of the existence of women.

JUSTIFIED BY SEXUAL FREEDOM, WOMEN REFUSE TO EARN THE RESPECT OF MEN BY WITHHOLDING CONQUEST. WOMEN ARE CONSEQUENTLY SEEN AS UNRESPECTABLE, UNDESIRABLE EXCEPT FOR SEX, AND TO BE USED AS TOOLS OF MALE PLEASURE. AND THAT’S BEFORE THEY GO OVERWEIGHT AND LOSE THE REST OF MALE INTEREST FOR MARRIAGE.

It’s the [PRE-ADOLESCENT] view that says pleasure and power can be obtained by being persistent, clever, and overwhelming, and responsibility for properly handling pleasure and power can be discarded the moment that responsibility starts to limit enjoyment of pleasure and power.

BOTH SEXES ARE BORN TO GET THEIR WAY WITH THE OTHER. WOMEN USE THEIR FREE WILL TO DISCARD RESPONSIBILITY AS MEN DO; EXAMPLE: WHEN A WOMAN YIELDS TO  CONQUEST OFTEN AGAINST HER BETTER JUDGMENT.

Whether they are gay or straight, it doesn’t matter.  It’s just the male way, built on DNA, hormones, and brain wiring.

I SEE THE POWER/PLEASURE INTERACTION AS COMPETITION, NEGOTIATING, AND THUS NATURAL TO BOTH GENDERS. POWER IS THE PROCESS OF MEN DEALING WITH WOMEN, ENTERTAINMENT IS THE SYSTEM AND PLEASURE OF WHAT WOMEN OFFER WHEN DEALING WITH MEN. NEGOTIATION CALLS FOR BALANCE, BUT MEN LEARN HOW TO DEFEAT WOMEN WHEN WOMEN DON’T LIVE UP TO THEIR DNA, HORMONES, AND BRAIN WIRING.

But I am at a point in my life where I am coming to see that men who function this way are actually not functioning as men were made to function.

MEN ARE FOLLOWING THEIR NATURE TO THE CORE WHEN WOMEN FAIL TO FOLLOW THEIR NATURE TO THE CORE. BOTH SEXES ARE BORN TO BE COMPATIBLE AS MATES AND WILLING AND ABLE TO COMPETE TO GET THEIR WAY. WHEN ONE GOES ASTRAY, THE OTHER FOLLOWS BY TAKING ADVANTAGE. BY FOLLOWING THEIR NATURES, THEY MATCH UP PRETTY EVENLY, AND IT’S A DRAW THAT EARNS MUTUAL RESPECT.

For purposes of teaching and reinforcing WWNH ideas, it is very helpful to isolate instinctive male behavior and look at it separate from female behavior, but that behavior in the real world is not separated from female behavior.

I THOROUGHLY ISOLATE INSTINCTIVE FEMALE MOTIVATION AS WELL AS MALE. SO, AT WWNH, FEMALE BEHAVIOR IN THE REAL WORLD IS NOT SEPARATED FROM MALE BEHAVIOR. I GO FURTHER, MATCH THEIR NATURES AS COMPATIBLE, AND IDENTIFY DIFFERENT MOTIVATIONS AS THEY LEARN DIFFERENT LESSONS IN LIFE.

Men who consistently act as if their male behavior is meant to exist independent and uninfluenced by female behavior . . .

Those are not men as God intends them to be.

YOU MUST MEAN IN RELATION TO WOMEN. NEITHER SEX STANDS ALONE. GOD CREATED A SPECIES THAT HAS TO PERPETUATE ITSELF OR PERISH, AND HE WOULDN’T DO THAT OR WE WOULD HAVE BEEN GONE MILLENNIA AGO. INSTEAD, WE’VE BECOME THE MOST SUCCESSFUL SPECIES, IF WE JUST MEASURE BY EXPLOITATION OF OUR MENTAL ABILITY AND DEVELOPMENT.

Men who use their maleness to get their every selfish desire . . . and who try to try coerce other people when it looks as if what they desire is slipping away . . . those are not truly male men, no matter how much they may look it on the surface.

BOTH SEXES ARE BORN TO COMPETE TO GET THEIR WAY. IF WOMEN ARE LOSING, IT’S NOT THE FAULT OF MEN. IF MEN ARE WINNING, IT’S A PYRRHIC VICTORY, BECAUSE THEY HAVE LOST FAR MORE BY WOMEN LOSING THEIR ABILITY TO HANDLE MEN SUCCESSFULLY IN RELATIONSHIPS.

In my view, however much a man might want sex, if he does not have the ability to patiently wait for it in the context of marriage, and if he is not willing to go into a serious relationship with the idea that it will end in marriage . . . he is no real man.

THAT’S WHY AND HOW WOMEN MAKE REAL MEN. WITHOUT WOMEN NO REAL MAN CAN EXIST, SINCE A WOMAN MEASURES THE REALITY OF A MAN AS SHE THINKS OF HIM AS FIT FOR MATING.

If a man can only be “tricked” into a commitment through a woman’s romantic strategies and is not mature enough to leave her the hell alone if it looks like marriage will not work . . .

SORRY, BUT ROMANTIC STRATEGIES HARNESS WOMEN AND NOT MEN. MEN RELY MORE ON LOGIC, REASON, CURIOSITY, AND IMAGINATION RATHER THAN ROMANTIC FANTASIES THAT MOTIVATE WOMEN TO EXPECT MORE THAN MEN ARE WILLING TO INVEST OF THEMSELVES.

He is not, not, not a man as God intends men to be.

OF COURSE HE IS. HOWEVER, HE’S NOT THE MAN THAT WOMEN OR ONE WOMAN INTENDS HIM TO BE. GOD MADE WOMEN THE GOVERNORS OVER MALE BEHAVIOR. WOMEN ARE ENDOWED WITH THE RELATIONSHIP EXPERTISE, BUT MEN HAVE NOT THE FOGGIEST NOTION OR INTEREST IN HOW TO CREATE, BUILD, OR MANAGE RELATIONSHIPS THAT LAST (ONLY THOSE BUILT AROUND POKE, COME, AND GO).

However much a woman might want him to be The One, she needs to run as far away from him as possible.  Because it is for sure that she will get hurt if she doesn’t.

IT’S WHY GOD MADE WOMEN SO MAGNIFICENTLY ENDOWED TO IDENTIFY, SCREEN, AND REFUSE TO ASSOCIATE WITH THOSE FROM WHOM SHE SHOULD RUN. IF SHE DOESN’T, WHY BLAME MEN?

SHE HAS ALL THE RELATIONSHIP TALENT. SHE HOLDS THE COUPLE/FAMILY UNIT TOGETHER. HE HAS ALL THE HARD-WORK TALENT. HE IS DESIGNED AND HORMONALLY FITTED TO KEEP A RELATIONSHIP PROVIDED, PROTECTED, PROVISIONED, AND WITH PROBLEMS SOLVED.

EXPECT MORE OR SOMETHING ELSE, WITHOUT FIRST RAISING HIM AS A BOY AND LATER CONDITIONING HIS THOUGHTS TO FEMALE ADVANTAGE, AND YOU WILL BE SURPRISED BY A MAN’S LIMITATIONS FOR SATISFYING ONE OR MORE WOMEN.

2604. Who is Responsible for Marital Success? Chapter 13a: Hank Explained

Her Highness Femme says “there is NO WAY a man would make a speech like that to a woman (me).” I’m sure she rings many bells elsewhere.

The series is titled, Who is Responsible for Marital Success? Common sense says both parties and a dual responsibility. Common senses says that sharing, dividing, and fulfilling the dual responsibility is a competitive and possibly combative job. Common sense says negative motivation—criticism and blame—produces unwanted results and can prompt failure in any process. Works that way with kids doesn’t it? Husbands are just big kids in the view of their wives. Yet, many wives ignore common sense and produce their own misery.

Women want their husband to be more responsible, and so Hank assumes full and complete responsibility even ahead of his marriage to Jenny. He exemplifies his male nature; he is sufficiently motivated to upgrade a system in need, please his woman, and admire himself for having undertaken to produce such promising results. The greatest satisfaction comes from the toughest achievements, and Hank is hardwired to believe it.

Women sympathize, empathize, share their miseries, swap justifying thoughts, and support each other as they bad mouth men. Then, as a gender, they shape their complaints and blames into female-sharpened hatchets to be thrust into the masculine psyche. With Hank, I idealize five things to expect, if men did what women claim they want and expect.

1. Our man Hank takes complete charge to produce a magnificent plan of what he thinks his woman will more than welcome. He has no hidden agenda and expects to negotiate details later. (He knows the marriage system doesn’t work well. Women rely on love, but it is never enough. He intends to prevent problems rather than have to overcome them and thereby relieve Jenny of so many wifely problems. His intentions are far more honorable than any woman should expect, but yet less acceptable. He lacks one thing: spur of the moment woman-think, and his lack converts the story to fantasy.)
2. Our motivated hero demonstrates with actions his promise to be a good husband, to take charge and assume responsibility for mate, family, and home. (He is motivated to assume all risks and rely on his expectation that wife will provide full cooperation with his leadership. He dreams of their life together sixty years from now. He’s not a dawdler. He accomplishes, produces, and can be depended upon to make things work out satisfactorily.)
3. Our potential husband already planned how he intends to prevent rather than have to heal or recover from interpersonal problems with wife and family. (The eight strategies described in post 2600.)
4. Inspired not just by Jenny but his own need to please her, Hank knows what Jenny needs most. His plans are aimed directly to guarantee his promise to cherish her for life as her husband.
5. Following his nature, Hank designs and plans to cure ailments in the ailing marital system, because he is sufficiently incentivized to make his life more sterling in his eyes and golden in Jenny’s.

There comes a time in the world of under performing marriages, wifely complaints, and assigning blame that men stand up to say, let’s do something else; e.g., upgrade marriage. It was Hank’s time, and he took it. Common sense says he could never get away with it. In fact, it would probably scare most women away. But not Jenny, she has her own lessons to teach, so the fantasy continues.

Admittedly, the story morphed to fantasy. It is pardonable. He knows the female nature and knows it well, but Hank lacks one thing. Woman-think, the common mental processes that will dominate Jenny’s development of events and relationships under his grand plan. It amounts to this in the real world. A man’s planning for their future too easily interferes with a woman’s relationship development and self-brightening of her own future at the present time.

Of course you won’t see or hear Hank’s speech from a man today. Hank morphed from real in chapter 1 to fantasy in 13.  Women don’t always need what they expect out of men and their man, and Hank represents it on steroids. It’s Jenny’s turn for fantasy, next.

2485. Friendly Reminders — 04

• Expecting Mr. Good Enough to make himself worthy of her creates relationship glue. The drawn out habit-forming process should have no precise rush or goal for her; just enable him to develop his worthiness. If marriage results, it will be his idea or it likely won’t last. The prove-his-worth glue should help her harmonize their togetherness (unless, of course, she assumes another persona after marriage).
• Men can’t duplicate God’s unconditional love, but they can show the earthly equivalent. That is, unconditional respect for individuals, especially those that reveal they don’t deserve it. (Strictly by the male nature, men only respect those who earn their personal respect.)
• Men are slow to adapt, but they follow for better or worse the moral and religious standards exemplified by women and especially their woman. (Men like for all women to live by the same values, standards, and expectations that are elevated above masculinity. In the past, men morphed into gentlemen in the wake of women who styled themselves as ladies. It makes women more mysterious, unpredictable, and not understandable. All of which makes them more attractive to men, when their inside attractiveness uplifts their outside appearance.)
• Projecting gratitude and respect reflects on hubby as her dependence. It  makes wife more valuable to him, even though she proves herself relatively independent in harmonizing the home.
• Professing psychological need of a man—‘I can’t do without you’— weakens her case to keep him. She acts too possessive. He’s neither pleased nor capable, and he dodges it until she gets sickening about it. Then he departs.
• These multiplex ingredients blend into maximum marital glue. Her likeability reinforces his significance. In his eyes he’s a better man for having her. His significance reinforces her need for a brighter future. She’s a better woman for having it brighter. Without those connections intensely exchanged, other single ingredients can be insufficient, e.g., love, respect, affection, vows, dependence.

 

2326. Two-man Debate

Scotty b. at 2324 disagrees with me. His ‘apples’ describe how women and especially men think in the marketplace today. My ‘oranges’ describe how the male and female natures are born differently. He describes how men expect women to abandon their female nature in order to please men. I describe how women protect their best interest by following their nature and influencing men to honor female values, standards, and expectations.

His comments are bolded, mine are not.

“I disagree with your foundational proposition that women should artificially make men wait as long as possible for sex. I don’t believe that the sex can then ever live up to the time, work, and emotional investment proffered by the man.”

Your proposition is that men invest themselves in a woman for some quantity and quality of sex; it’s their prime motive. First, I don’t believe that to be part of the male nature; lessons learned from other men perhaps, but learned neither from women nor the inborn male nature. Second, women are far better for other than just sex. Their natural qualities are superbly fashioned to provide the worthy care and support of men, a man, and a mate.

Men who can’t admit that—which seems a popular theme in the Manosphere—betray their own gender as possible mates. If they can’t respect women, it’s a sure indication they lack self-respect as good men, which makes them undesirable, undependable, and irresponsible to women who seek to mate with a good man.

My foundational proposition is that a female can never know the honesty and sincerity of a man’s claim to love her until she examines his character closely over time. The most reliable way balances her strong resistance against his insistence to achieve their first sex together (aka hunter-conqueror’s conquest). Only from that balance can she identify and evaluate his true character and what it means and he offers for her future. How well will his character fit in with fulfillment of her hopes and dreams?

Repeated denial of conquest forces him to decide if she’s worth his effort or not. If not, she wins by finding out now rather than later. Or, he decides she’s worth more than just for sex. In which case, he searches for weaknesses and tries ever harder to bed her but with different results. She’s now in the process of being able to win but in her way.

In the try-harder process, he discovers other qualities that he admires (virtues to him). Seeking to marry a virtuous woman, which is an indirect expectation of the male nature, he teaches himself that she has promise to help and support him in his ambitions and endeavors. It’s his final step to finding a good woman and her first step to fulfillment of hopes and dreams.

IOW, his unrewarded chasing her for conquest both invests himself in her and adds value to her as possible mate. OTOH, whenever conquest happens, it ends his search for more virtues, because he has proven himself worthy of her by her yielding her greatest asset. She becomes either a keeper, booty, or dumpee.

Thus, conquest frees him to conquer someone else, unless he found enough virtues that qualify her for mating. If he stays with her, she must be worth it. In which case, she seems to finally win from all those denials for earlier conquest. If they marry, it’s a different ballgame and one that she is quite capable of managing because her nature is superior for doing just that.

“In most cases, this leads to the man harboring tremendous resentment and never again fully trusting her authenticity. He will always wonder if she is once again making him jump through hoops for no legitimate reason.”

Men harbor “tremendous resentment” because a woman chooses not to honor a man’s request for sex? Therefore, she can’t be authentic? You’re saying that denial of sex is not a legitimate course of action for a woman? Men don’t have to honor the values, standards, and expectations of women? Sex reigns as universally available? Women have to follow the man’s game—promiscuity—in order to earn the appreciation of men? Why are women expected only to select which men and not whether to yield or not? What happened to we’re all created equal, the concept that fosters mutual respect between both genders and individuals?

“Further, that strategy [of denying conquest] often leaves the women firmly in control of the relationship – something women think and say they want…. Yet, if you ask a woman to describe the time she was most in Love, that depiction will NEVER include so much as a hint of her being in control of the relationship. Not ever.”

Love and conquest are not equals, the same, or even close as partners within the female motivational force. Denying conquest is defensive. Loving someone is offensive. When they contradict in the female mind, she consciously chooses the one most important to her self-interest. It’s rational thinking, much like men use to make good decisions. Do modern men find it impermissible for modern women?

“Men, as you correctly assert, fall in love primarily by visual stimulation. Thus, they mostly become more in Love in the presence of the One they Love.”

I disagree. In the presence of the one he loves but has not conquered, the male nature keeps his thoughts dedicated to uncovering her weaknesses to expedite getting her into bed. He may proclaim his undying love, but that is not the same as becoming more in love with her. His love grows from his investment of self to please himself by pleasing her. Trying to get her to yield does not please her when her expectations are against it.

“Women primarily fall in Love outside of the presence of the One they Love.”

I disagree again. Discounting infatuation, a woman’s love happens over the course of several encounters. She has to decide several things that involve the prolific use of her curiosity, imagination, and judgment. Is he worthy? Is he responsible? Dependable enough? Are his words reliable, match his actions? What red flags does she have to accept or reject? Is he a potential temp or permanent? How does he fit inside her strategy for fulfilling her hopes and dreams? And ad infinitum.

“It is a scientific fact that women are more attracted to a man whose feelings are unclear. Women’s emotions are anchored and grow deeper while they remain uncertain if he loves and cares for them reciprocally.”

I tend to agree except I doubt the “scientific fact.” His unclear feelings throw up a challenge to her. It fires up her curiosity and imagination, and those are the faculties by which she also falls in love. So, it can happen as you describe.

“Their Love deepens as they discuss their last date with their girlfriends, as they analyze him, and as they strategize how to capture the Love of the One they Want.”

True. What women express verbally they tend to believe accordingly.

“It is women not men who need, and crave, the ‘hunt’ and the process of falling in Love and the thrill of strategically maneuvering until she wins over the Man she Desires.”

You have mixed up the roles. Men and not women are hunter-conquerors, although modern women are habitually disproving it by acting more like men than following their female nature. Yes, women do love the thrill of “strategically maneuvering until she wins over the Man she Desires.” I acknowledge that men hunt and women maneuver.

“In this post, the “superior gender” is a dangerous phrase. ‘Superior’ is neither accurate nor supportive of your ideals. Applied to, and internalized by, either males or females, that adjective has the potential to do great harm. Do you really believe one gender is superior to the other?!?”

I counter with this from article 2213 posted 5/23/2015:

Superior Sex vs. Dominant Sex. On the macro scale of human behavior, we see a superior sex and irresistible force versus a dominant sex and immovable object. However, God designs the genders such that the immovable becomes moveable with irresistible female leveraging of sexual availability. That is, men do whatever women require in order for men to have frequent and convenient access to sex.

On the other hand, the irresistible female force becomes resistible under the influence of masculine strength to get what men want. Women do whatever men require in order for women to enjoy the fruits of manly producing, providing, protecting, and problem solving on behalf of women and children.

It’s a swap meet. Irresistible and immovable both yield voluntarily to reciprocal loyalty and likeability when surrounded by affirmation, accommodation, and affection. Consequently, their competing powers balance and cooperate to form compatibly successful relationships under management of relationship experts (aka women).

“With those items noted, I thank you and appreciate your blog. Though I disagree with the above items, it does not change my appreciation for your hard work, clever writing style, attention to detail and the ideas you convey. Thank you.”

And I thank you for the compliment of providing such attention to detail. Let the debate continue.

2271. Dark Side of Feminism: The Swamp of Ill-feeling

I aim at the gender level, ladies, so don’t take it personal except the sentence surrounded by asterisks.

The male and female natures inherited at birth have been socialized and domesticated into habits that work contrary to how we are born. Default conditions are ignored because of pressures designed by political activists. I don’t alibi for either sex but blame Feminism to explain how and why compatibility has sunk into the swamp of ill-feeling toward the opposite sex.

Feminists taught women to blame men for female problems. Doing so put women in the role of acting contrary to their nature, contrary to where their heart leads them. *As the direct response, single women soften their natural hard-headedness and married women harden their soft-heartedness.*

Men aren’t as much offended as they are disappointed in females. Men think: I want to cooperate but with all the crap you pull, why should I?

As women go so goes society and we all do what makes us feel good about ourselves; women do it with little regard for how it registers with men. The combination causes men to harden up their hard-headedness and refuse to soften up their natural hard-heartedness. Men are disappointed because they are discouraged from being heroes to the opposite sex, which gives every indication of being in distress but undeserving of masculine help.

Feminism changed all women; it’s now a universal spirit. Women can’t resist being convinced that they deserve better than whatever men produce and provide. They measure men by how men treat them instead of how men measure themselves by what they accomplish. That difference rocks compatibility.

Adopting feminist thought, women don’t or can’t abandon their natural motivational baseline, which bastardizes their motivational drive and produces results that further confuse the female mind, and which earns disrespect in the male mind.

She tries to bond with sex but men don’t. She abandons modesty to be liked and men don’t respect her. She forgoes mystery that fires up the male imagination and favors full disclosure that kills male curiosity. She expects boyfriend to be loyal to her but she doesn’t first earn his respect. She expects husband to be faithful but tries to change him. She builds his castle on fashion and her reputation with women and disregards his desire for a functional recovery and resting place. She weakens his comfort and daily recovery by insisting to keep a perfect appearance within the home. She tortures him with petty requests to do what she can easily do herself. She commands his presence without respecting his other obligations. She doesn’t respect his family but she wants them to do what she expects. She ranks her children over her man and expects him to peacefully play second fiddle to her music score. She ignores her heart by letting others convince her its undependable to protect and promote her interests. She wants to make sure he knows that her needs and wants are more important than his.

By trying to either be more like men or get them to act more like females, women confuse themselves. They are unable to produce the outcomes they long for. Men wish it were otherwise, but modern women are propagandized to listen to women instead of men. It’s more a gender than individual happening; by blaming men, women escape guilt for causing relationship failures. Much as the radical feminists anticipated it five decades ago.

On the other side of the ledger, the male nature stubbornly rejects feminist theory. Men stick to mostly following their nature, which of course is never all that admirable to women. Men learn in life that particular behaviors annoy the heck out of women and—when inclined to please their woman—they avoid the annoyances. However, when blamed, they easily convince themselves that ‘I don’t appreciate what she does, why please her?’, which pushes them back toward their self-centered, hard-headed, and hard-hearted nature.

So, what else is new? He takes me for granted. He never shows enough affection. His job comes before me. He won’t help with housework. He won’t help enough with the kids. He won’t clean or pick up after himself. He’s a slob around the house. He spends our money on his toys. He’s so selfish he doesn’t know the meaning of ‘us’. He wants sex whether I’m ready or not. He never wants to take my family into consideration. He loves our daughter but expects too much from our son. He thinks I should be able to handle a full-time job and housework with no help and no problems. He talks a good game but doesn’t produce when the chips are down.

Those are symptoms of men who don’t care if they annoy their woman or they purposely do it out of some real or imagined spite. Men aren’t that opposed to cooperation unless they want to save face.

Blaming a man shows disrespect and men tire easily of it. They expect to be respected and appreciated and to measure it by her displays of obvious gratitude, which also endorses his likeability to her and her willingness to be loyal to him.

Thus, the pointy finger of blame continues to mock compatibility and flood the already full swamp of ill-feeling toward the opposite sex.

2169. Chivalry — Recovery is Everything and Overdue

If you read the first post on this subject, #2168, why have we as a culture so readily accepted the intentional murder of chivalry at the hands of feminists? More importantly, how do we recover if the feminists were to let us? Or why should we even try?

I talk much about the character and custom-setting deeds of our forebears and how society’s female-friendly standards shrink. Perhaps chivalry could help right our sinking cultural ship, so I describe the road to recovery.

Chivalry indirectly leads to female happiness in one of life’s cause-and-effect natural phenomena. The process that follows is produced by both sexes following their hearts to live according to the natural condition they inherit at birth. It’s what instinct and intuition lead men and women to do naturally. It contributes greatly to general compatibility that leads respectably to enjoyable mating and indirectly to better fulfillment of girlhood hopes and dreams.

However, the practice has to be taught in childhood. That’s right. Both sexes need to have the benefits of following one’s instincts reinforced. God provides no owner’s manual until old enough to study the Bible. So, parents have to close the gap.

Male Nature:

• Women are born to earn happiness over time. Men are born to earn satisfaction through daily achievements, and chivalry provides significant opportunity for both sexes.
• His actions generate his feelings. A male who practices chivalry develops over time a deeply-rooted belief that he should unconditionally respect females, which includes the desire to give unconditionally, which enables him to eagerly find favor with a female, which energizes him to put his convenience momentarily at the disposal of a female, which makes him feel good about himself, which earns self-admiration, which provides satisfaction that he did the right thing. His chivalrous actions program his heart with those feelings (so long as the process isn’t interrupted by female signals that his effort isn’t welcome, in which case his will power and determination have to say ‘don’t quit’).
• To boy or man brought up to be chivalrous, it becomes a duty. They are automatically responsible for distressed or otherwise discombobulated females. Fulfilling one’s duty is not an event that deserves reward, and men don’t appreciate unearned gifts. Consequently, women don’t know much about rewarding a chivalrous act, even though mere acknowledgement is sufficient when a guy does his duty.
• It’s a hard and fast belief developed in childhood. Teaching boys that females are weaker and, therefore, to be protected makes males feel stronger, which opens the male heart to helping, which opens the door for chivalry, which defines a new duty, which energizes males to earn female favor, which produces a male at her disposal, which makes females feel superior, which puts her in the role of boss, which confirms she’s not the weaker sex, which guys can accept unless it’s verbalized.

Female Nature:

• As you’ve read so often on this blog, women are born to be happy but they have to earn it. It comes from each woman’s gratitude for herself compounded by gratefulness for others in her life. Treated chivalrously, she becomes grateful for who she is and what she deserves, which adds to her sense of self-importance and ability to pass her gratitude on to others.
• Chivalrous actions make a female feel superior. Her heart becomes programmed with respect and gratitude, which makes girls and women more grateful for themselves, which contributes to their happiness. Indirectly, chivalrous men help women find happiness. Also, his actions program her heart with respect and appreciation for males.

However, the foundation of chivalry is a delightful charade based on male eagerness to deceive themselves about females. Men are extremely unwilling to acknowledge any superiority to women; it’s inconsistent with their natural sense of dominance. By focusing solely on physical abilities and calling females the weaker sex, men can ‘prove’ to themselves that any superiority attached to the female gender is inconsequential. Chivalry confirms the weakness of one sex, which strokes the ego of men, and lifts any burden from men to admit otherwise. That’s the female-friendly charade that men develop to win female favor, but also to protect their own sense of significance.

Which begs the question, isn’t Feminism designed to highlight the superiority of women? Sure, but it doesn’t work except with the power of government imposed for legal, political, and economic advancements that become toxic when brought into both social and domestic relationships by well-meaning women with unrealistic expectations.

History proves the sexes can live compatibly. Men can’t and won’t do so when women impose their superiority to get their way. Either women keep their superior nature to themselves and avoid reminding men that it even exists, or men resent, resist, and often retaliate. To admit women are superior is to admit manly insignificance, which by nature is a man’s greatest fear that ranks with her fear of abandonment, which is what he does when she goes too far.

I submit that men or boys who are raised to be chivalrous, are not the same males who are abusing and disrespecting women and children on a regular basis. True chivalry, when ingrained in a boy, serves him throughout life. It provides a sense of satisfaction when he is able to help, please, win their favor, or delight women and children. It also serves as an internalized insurance policy against him becoming an abuser. Men can’t hit women, if taught to be chivalrous in boyhood.

Observe these Italian boys: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2OcKQ_mbiQ and watch to the end.

You saw with the Italian boys how easily a charade can be turned into more safety for females. One simple admission, females are weaker, which enables males to ignore female superiority as long as it remains inadmissible as evidence for females to get their way. It’s easily and best taught in childhood. That’s next as this series grows from two to three installments.